Hi mentors, I read the update in policy 4.1.3 and I'm not sure how to handle the change / clarification of the Built-Using control field for the syslinux package (which I maintain in the debian-cd team). I have two questions:
The syslinux-efi binary package contains parts of the gnu-efi package due to static linking. I believe that, independent of the license question, in order to satisfy DFSG §2 (“The program must include source code, […]”) I need to keep using the Built-Using control field. Especially since it's conceivable that a new version of gnu-efi breaks compatibility with some specific efi implementation. However, on a technical level, I don't really see the difference between my case and linking against glibc, which according to the debian-policy bug used to discuss this change [1] should not use the Built-Using field. While thinking about the above problem I noticed something else which brings me to my second question: Parts of gnu-efi are covered by the BSD-3-clause license. In order to satisfy the second clause (“Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice […]”) do I need to somehow include the debian/copyright file from gnu-efi in the syslinux-efi binary package? Or is it sufficient to ensure that the archive keeps the corresponding source package, which includes the copyright information, around? Thank you Lukas [1] https://bugs.debian.org/688251